The Old Testament is filled with typology. If you don’t believe it, just read the New Testament and you will discover the NT writers explaining the types as they exegete the OT. You know, there is nothing like reading the exegesis of a preacher who is being inspired by the Spirit of One who actually inspired the writing of the text in the first place. Or how about reading Jesus’ exegesis of Numbers 21:6-9 as quoted by the Apostle John in John 3:14-15. Talk about powerful preaching.
The Apostle Paul, who was trained as a rabbi and had studied under the Rabbi Gamaliel, was a master of demonstrating how Jesus Christ was the sum and substance of the Old Testament messianic expectations of Israel.
Judaizers: Jewish converts to Christianity whose unbiblical Old Testament theology denied the substitutionary atonement and imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. The Judaizers believed the essence of Judaism which was a works-based gospel.
In the Book of Galatians Paul takes on the false Gospel of the Judaizers. Consider the Apostle Paul’s exegesis of Genesis account of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:22-26 – 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
First of all, I think that it is valid to say that if Judaism had any gospel within it then the gospel according to the Judaizers would have been true. They united the essential elements of Judaism and Christianity into a Judeo-Christian theology. But Paul rejected Judaism and the Judaizers. Yes, it is true that Paul ministered in the synagogues, but he did so in an effort to convert his fellow Jews to Christianity, not to prop up Judaism or to mesh it with Christianity.
Second, in Galatians 3:6 Paul has already drawn the distinction between the religion of Abraham and the religions of Judaism and the Judaizers. Abraham had been justified by faith alone, faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian as Jesus taught the Jews in John 8. Abraham did not invent any religion but was converted to the same religion that had been practiced by Adam, Able, Enoch, Noah and Melchizedek. Abraham was called by God to have faith in Christ. Abraham did not invent any religion, for as Jesus said to the Jews who claimed to practice the religion of Abraham, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)
Third, in Galatians 3:16 Paul corrected any interpretation of the Old Testament that would focus on the physical descendants of Abraham. The Jews and the Judaizers and pre-millennialists today have all wrongly understood the promises of the Abahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants to be fulfilled in the physical nation of Israel. This has caused Jews and Dispensationalists to believe that prophecies such as in Daniel and Ezekiel to be fulfilled in a national Israeli government. But Paul made it clear in verse 16 that the “seed” of the Abrahamic Covenant was referring to Christ, not ethnic Jews. Thus Christians, believers who are “in Christ”, are the heirs of the promises of God. That would include Jews, Gentiles, bond or free, male or female, all the elect beginning with Adam and ending sometime in the future when Christ returns. Paul’s gospel was the same Christian gospel that has been preached since God cursed the serpent after the fall of Adam. Any theological system that focuses on the physical, the temporal, the shadow rather than the fulfillment may understand the person of Christ but does not fully understand the work of Christ.
So we see that Paul interprets the Old Testament with the understanding that it is all about Christ. Christ fulfilled the typology. All other New Testament writers recognized the same.
- Israel the nation was a two-fold type: believing Israel was a typified the elect, unbelieving Israel typified the lost.
- Israel the land typified our heavenly rest in heaven and the new earth.
- The temple typified the body of Christ, believers.
- The priests, the sheep, Melchizedek, the Passover, the Exodus, the Ark, the Mosaic Law, manna, the Red Sea, and so much more are all revealed to be real and actual but with typological meanings as determined by the wisdom of God so that man could understand spiritual truth.
In Galatians 4:22-26 Paul reveals the typology of Sarah and Hagar. To the surprise of the Judaizers, Jews, and dispensationalists Paul makes it unmistakably clear that Hagar represents the Sinaitic Covenant. Here the physical descendants of Sarah become the spiritual descendants of Hagar, while the physical descendants of Hagar, interpreted of Gentiles in general, become the spiritual descendants of Sarah. Paul then quotes Isa. 54:1 (in 4:27) to show that the future belongs with the Christian church and not with Judaism, finally confirming this by returning to the record in Genesis (Gen. 21:9 ff.). [1] This re-interpretation of the role of Abraham and his descendants completely turns the tables on those who saw themselves as defenders of the religion of Israel. Paul has just placed them in the same category as the descendants of Ishmael! [2]
“Hagar religion” is works-religion. It is man’s attempts to save himself, to be god. It is a religion of bondage. It typifies any religion that rejects the finished works of Christ. Notice the terms “free” and “slave” in this text; the symbolism is powerful. Think about the implications this has to the doctrine of imputation and redemption! And when Paul said, “She corresponds to the present Jerusalem” is was a striking condemnation of Judaism in particular or any religious system in general that elevates the nation Israel (the type) over the Church (the fulfillment). Any Jews since Ishmael that have practiced any religion other than Christianity is in bondage to the curse of sin and the condemnation of God’s laws. And anyone who has tried to elevate the fleshly Israel over the spiritual Israel has missed the point and has hindered Christians from focusing on the Gospel of Christ. Any system of theology that will try to prove that the types of the Old Testament are still valid, unfulfilled, or will be instituted again in the future, is a system of theology that is guilty of the very errors that Judaism represents.
- The religion of Mt. Sinai pointed to the religion of Mt. Calvary; don’t stay on Mt. Sinai.
- The earthly Jerusalem was a type that pointed to the Jerusalem above; don’t focus on the present Jerusalem as a city as having anything to do with Christianity – the typology was fulfilled.
- The typology of the nation of Israel has been fulfilled.
- Ethnic Jews are no different than ethnic Gentiles as far as the gospel is concerned, and that has been true since the beginning. Yes, ethnic Jews were once used in typology but that was fulfilled in the New Covenant. So don’t go backwards in your theology — look to Christ the author and finisher of our faith.
- Don’t make the mistake of interpreting the New Testament as teaching that although the types were fulfilled in Christ that they should still be practiced or that they will be reinstituted in the future.
- Don’t make the mistake of focusing on the physical, on man, on works, on the temporal, on governments, on politics, or anything other than Christ.
Such mistakes have been committed by Christians since the beginning. In fact, this issue has been the most common mistake among Christian theologians. Man is always tempted to replace the spiritual with the physical, to replace faith with religious works, to replace the righteousness of Christ with man’s efforts. It was Abraham and Sarah themselves who made this mistake in such a way that it is used by Paul as the example of all works-based religion. Thankfully, Abraham and Sarah were Christians, people of faith, who repented of this sin. But they were not the last of God’s people who would make this theological mistake. May we, who have the benefit of the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament, not make these mistakes any longer.
As Jesus said to the Jews in John 8, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” The doctrines of Christianity are “Sarah-like” rather than “Hagar.” Abraham and Sarah had Christian faith not Judeo-Christian faith.
[1] Fung, Galatians, p. 220
[2] Riddlebarger
For more on Covenant Theology click here
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Are you saying, in this context, that Dispensationalist believe that Jews today must remember that:
o The religion of Mt. Sinai did not point to the religion of Mt. Calvary; it stayed on Mt. Sinai.
o The earthly Jerusalem wasn’t a type that pointed to the Jerusalem above; it focuses on the present Jerusalem as a city as has nothing to do with Christianity (the fulfilled typology).
o The typology of the nation of Israel has not been fulfilled.
o Ethnic Jews are different from the ethnic Gentiles as far as the gospel is concerned, although that has not been true since the beginning. No, ethnic Jews were once used in typology but that was not fulfilled in the New Covenant. So one must go backwards in his or her theology — avoid looking to Christ the author and finisher of our faith.
o Interpret the New Testament as teaching that although the types were fulfilled in Christ, Jews should not practice them because they will be reinstituted in the future.
o They must focus on the physical, on man, on works, on the temporal, on governments, on politics, or anything other than Christ.
All I’m doing is trying to reverse the thrust of some of the bullets to see if anything ridiculous pops out. I’m simple that way.
You anti-Semetic jerk. Your hermeneutic is horrible.
St. Brianstine, if you are going to make accusations of anti-semetism and bad hermeneutics then could you back those up with some sort of proof.
So Abe and Sarah were Christians? You made this up. The text does not support this in any way. I thought, (as did Luke) that they were “first called Christians in Antioch….”
You read your view into the text practically throughout the whole article. You replace the physical with the spiritual and allegorize away everything! I don’t have the time to go point by point with you…because I honestly don’t think it will matter.
What your doing is filtering scripture through your theolgoical presuppostitions and predispositions. Much of what you espouse is simply not in the the text.
Seh lah vee!
A couple things, St. Brianstine.
Don’t you think there was a difference between Jacob and Esau? One was a believer like his father and his father, and one wasn’t. Why squabble over the vernacular?
Today, we use Matthew 18 as a model for how to execute Christian church discipline, even though the word “Christian” had not been invented at that point. So which type was Jesus talking to?
Paul the Apostle through the inspiration of God’s Spirit wrote with Divine authority and complete inerrancy the following: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants.” (Gal. 4:24 ESV)
Brian says with all of his own authority and wisdom the following: “You replace the physical with the spiritual and allegorize away everything! What your doing is filtering scripture through your theolgoical presuppostitions and predispositions. Much of what you espouse is simply not in the the text. You anti-Semetic jerk. Your hermeneutic is horrible.”
I will refrain from returning the name calling and just let the facts speak for themselves.
Next Holocaust anyone?
Anthony do you agree that Jews and Dispensationalists believe that prophecies such as in Daniel and Ezekiel to be fulfilled in a national Israeli government. The Jews believe that the Messiah has not come yet, and Dispensationalists believe that Israel as an ethnic people will be saved through the Great Tribulation and be restablished as a revived Davidic Kingdom, a world-wide political power in the Millennium? Do not the Jews desire the rebuilding of a Temple? Do not Dispy’s believe the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices made in the Millennium? Do not Jews think that what I have said in my post is anti-Semitic, did not the Jews persecute the Church? Do not Dispy’s believe that what I have said in my post is anti-Semitic even though I have proved that God is not racial in His election? Covenant theology is the very opposite of racial prejudice, Paul said that the God’s Israel is Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female, circumcised and uncircumcised. But would you agree that Jews and Dispy’s view ethnic Jews as a special race of people? Now, I am not saying there are not distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in the Scripture, but I am attempting the clarify what those distinctions are and are not. Do you see that?
I think that it is valid to say that if Judaism had any gospel within it then the gospel according to the Judaizers would have been true.
Uh…
“Judaism”, that of Abraham, Moses, David was salvific (by faith) in that it pointed to the coming Messiah and the need thereof.
In Galatians 4:22-26 Paul reveals the typology of Sarah and Hagar. To the surprise of the Judaizers, Jews, and dispensationalists Paul makes it unmistakably clear that Hagar represents the Sinaitic Covenant.
Yes, but keep in mind that there were children of Sarah (starting with Issac) from that pt on. Not everyone who was born under the Covenant given to Moses was a child of Hagar.
I’m sure you’ll agree, but the previous statement I quoted casts doubt upon the rest of the piece.
Jews were saved by faith in the Messiah, albeit a veiled Messiah, as revealed in what was then called Judaism.
See ” REL=”nofollow”>my post.
Jason, to believe as you put it, “that Israel as an ethnic people will be saved through the Great Tribulation and be restablished as a revived Davidic Kingdom, a world-wide political power in the Millennium,” would mean that something other than faith alone could save, so my answer is no.
I think that is probably the biggest linch pin in the whole of the Dispensation argument.
St. Brianstine, I want to tell you a couple of things with the sincere attempt to help. You really need to study this theology, because you don’t know what you are talking about.
Abraham and Sarah, if they were saved, it was by grace through faith in Christ and no other way. Anyone who has ever been saved OT or NT has been by faith in Christ. So it is not a stretch at all to say that Abraham was a Christian. His faith was in Christ not in works or sacrifices. If he wasn’t a Christian then what was he? Apply this also to Adam, Noah, Job, Enoch, Melchizidek and anyone else saved before the Isaac. The point is that as Christ told the men in John 8 before Abraham was I AM. Nothing has changed. The Israelites were like a felt board in a 4 year old Sunday School class. Everything was a type and shadow pointing to the Messiah to come. However, the felt board has been torn down because the real thing has come. We no longer need pictures of what is to come, because we can see for ourselves the perfect real incarnate Messiah. Which was plan A from the beginning.
You write as if you believe God had a salvation plan for the Jews and a different one for Gentiles or as if the Gentiles are a different family in God’s adoption. Is this the case? Does God have two families? Are Gentiles second class citizens in the kingdom. No the point is we are all part of the Israel of God.
Galatians 4, Romans 11 and the entire book of Hebrews point to the fact that the Israel of God is not a political kingdom. In Galatians 4:28 when Paul is talking to a Gentile church about the Judiazers he says to the Gentiles there “You, like Isaac, are the children of promise.” What made them the children of promise? Faith in Christ. So how are Gentiles “like Isaac” the children of promise? The answer is that both Jews and Gentiles are grafted into the same vine (Christ) in the same manner. Faith in Christ.
Earthly Jerusalem is called Hagar the one in bondage, while spiritual Jerusalem is called Sarah the freewoman. In verse 31 who is those born to the free woman. The same Gentile believers called the children of promise in verse 28.
And although it has been said once by Jason the Apostle Paul said in Galatians 4 that it is allegorical so don’t lay the blame for that on Jason.
Also none of what is written is new. It is believed by tens of thousands of people today. It just happens to not be dispensational.
Also if you are going to call someone anti-semetic and bad hermenutic then you are required I think to prove it. Not just spew name calling. I would like to see a point by point rebuttal to this post personally. At least I would like to see your hermenutic of Galatians 4. We deserve that much. While you are at it you might as well deal with John 8 and Mark 11:12-14.
Thanks, Scott.
Micah, you are asserting a common belief that Judaism and Christianity were once synonymous. That is, way back in the days of David, Jews practiced Judaism and it was in essence faith in Christ. Am I right?
But what if you discovered that those who practiced Judaism disagree with you? What if those who practiced Judaism say to you that we do not believe in your Messiah?
And concerning your point about Sarah vs Hagar’s decendants: what was Paul’s point. It was simple. It is not about physical decent but spiritual decent, no matter who your parents are. Remember Paul’s audience — the Gentiles of Galatia. He is bringing them exegetically to this point: “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29)
Micah, does that make sense? You are still arguing physical births, while Christ told Nicodemus and Paul is telling the Galatians that it is about being born spiritually through faith in Christ.
You see, brother, you say that this is synonymous with what was “then called Judaism.” But prove to us where David or Moses or Abraham called their religion Judaism. I contend that the there were always two religions among the Jews: one a religion of works (Judaism) and one a religion of faith (Christianity). Neither were called by those names, but in their essence that is what they were. So don’t get hung up on the names of the religion but the essence. That is what Paul is pointing out. Does that make sense?
All in due time…I am a full-time student…and I apologize for calling you a jerk.
I agree with the post but I’m not sure how to understand Rom 11:28-29. It makes it seem that Jews do indeed have a special place in God’s heart, even when they reject the Gospel and are in fact His enemies.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think Romans 11:28-29 says that God has a special place in his heart for all Jews. I think he has a special place in his heart for the elect, regardless of their race. In this case, this particular verse is refering to elect Jews who have not yet been regenerated, like Paul at one point in his life. But like I said, I could be wrong.
DANGITT!!! I just wrote about 2 pages for a response and the stupid computer (or user malfunction) deleted it before it posted! This sucks. I just wasted a good hour or so. I don’t have it in me to start over again right now. I don’t know if I will try again but we’ll see…if not, then maybe some other post…and a side note: is this all you guys post about? CT vs. Dispy, etc? I love the stuff on Saddleback, why not get to more stuff like that. Now that’s good reading.
Aggrivated,
~Brian
p.s. Really quick: Whats the deal with Micah 5:2? Micah says [Christ] will be “ruler in Israel”. Clearly this hasn’t happenne dyet. Do you spiritualize this too?
In light of Brian’s computer malfunction, lets all hold hands and sing “God is so good.”
Since The Lord told him to post the comment, it must have been demonic influences that interrupted his comment.
[homer]Lousy stinking Beelzebub.[/homer] Spiritual warfare is a birch, I tell you.
God is so good, God is so good, God is so good, He’s so good to me.
He answers prayer….
st Brianstine,
There is a scene in Braveheart. William Wallace is before the judges and charged with treason. His defense is that he never make an oath of allegiance to the King. The lead judge responsed “But your king never the less.”
Just because the jews do not accept Jesus as King does not make Him not their king. Also, did not Jesus teach that His kingdom is not of this world? Is not Jesus creator of the world? Hence He owns it? Is this a contradiction?
Also, the Gospel of John is a good place to see the relationship of God and Jesus. As stated above the “before Abramham I AM” passage, in John 14:7-11 Jesus reveals Himself when Philip asked him to show them (apostles)the Father.
John 12:13. A great multitude proclaimed Jesus “The King of Israel”. These were jews by the way. John 12:14 fulfilled Zech 9:9.
John 12:13 fulfilled Miach 5:2.
John 1:1-18 reveals who Jesus is.
1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.
1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Does not scripture tell us that Jesus is Prophet, Priest, King? Too many passages to list.
In 1 Samuel 8, Israel demands a king like all other nations. Samuel thinks Israel is rejecting his leadership. In verse 7 God speaks:
“And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.”
Did God at that point cease being King over Israel? Did He cease having authority over Israel? How does Jesus fit in with relationship to what John wrote in John chapter 1.
If I dislike the current President, President Bush, and state he is not my president. Is he immediately removed from office? Does his authority over me cease? Can I ignore him and his commands? I can ignore his commands but at my own peril. I will have to answer for my disobedience. But I will still benefit from his rulership, such as it is.
So those that hold to CT do not “spiritualize” Micah and in the many coversations I have had with those who hold to CT, I have found very little spiritualization, of scripture as you put, if any with these brothers.
Also, please read the entire site and see the many different post and subjects here. CT vs dispy is not center court. Let us burn the strawmen arguements ok. You will find subjects here you agree with and disagree with. Just like we all do. This subject brought me out of lurker mode.
Though the holding of hands and the singing of God is so Good may have gotten me. But, what? To cheap for a campfire!? :^)
anthony martin,
I do believe you are correct. If you read Romans in cultural and historical context. Paul was the main apostle to the gentiles. Jews first yes. But he worked with the gentiles.
At this period in church history, the christian jews and gentles were in conflict over what it meant to be christian. Hence the first church council as recorded in Acts of the Apostles. These NT books were written before christianity split from judaism. Hence they teach that both jew and gentile are Israel and elect.
People who truncate the history and theology of the scriptures see passages such as this meaning physical Israel. When the main thrust of scripture since Genesis has been spiritual over physical. Yes phyiscal plays a part, just not the main part. Starting with Cain and Abel, and then Seth. This thread is throughout scripture. Non-physical Jews are constantly brought into spiritual Israel and ethnic jews are constantly kicked out of spiritual Israel. I believe that Christ and God are more concerned with the spiritual than the physical. Paul also is more concerned with the spiritual.
My 2 cents.
Mark, thank you for your comments… and I say Amen. But one thing I would like to say as a clarification. You said, “…before christianity split from judaism.” You probably know what I am about to say… Christianity did not split from Judaism. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I AM.” Christianity existed long before believers were called Christians in Antioch, long before Judaism, long before Abraham or Noah. Adam and Eve practiced Christianity in its essential form when God commenced His post-Fall Covenant with them by giving them the promise of the Christ and slaying a sacrifice to cover their nakedness.
The simple way to explain it is: there has always been true believers, people whose faith was truly in Christ (Christians) within Judaism, but Judaism has never been within Christianity. Remember the prophets of the Old Covenant never called the people back to Judaism but back to faith in the Covenant God. They preached Christ.
Now I understand the popular nomenclature of religious jargon would say that God invented Judaism and that it was once a true religion. But that begs too many questions like what was Melchizedek’s religion or Enoch’s or Job’s or Nineveh’s after Jonah’s sermon? Yes, “Judaism” is a term that we call the religion that was practiced by ethnic Jews whose father was Abraham. But Jesus told the Jews in John 8 that anyone who practiced that religion apart from faith in Christ were lost! So ultimately Christianity is the only religion that matters… and it split off of no man-made religion!
I’m sure you agree. I just thought I would use your comment to make that clear distinction.
Jason,
I do agree with you. I used the term split as that is how secular history views it. Also at the time, some christian still attended jewish services. Hence Saul’s job to root them out.
The pitfalls of taking Early Christian History in seminary.
The jews never saw christianity as a subsect. The Romans did. That is why the first persecutions recorded were by jews upon christians. Not until Nero’s reign did Rome start to view christianity as an illegal religion. To be legal, the religion could keep it gods, just ceasar had to be LORD and sacrifices must be offered. The jewish did that while christians would not. Hence christianity was illegal.
Rome then became the main persecuter, especially after the 70 and early 2nd century jewish rebellions. Interestingly, these rebellions were mainly nationalistic and not religious. Jewish leaders, what we would call “elites”, continued to attack christianity with the pen and mob incited violence until about the 4th century.
I guess I shall now wait for someone to call me anti-semite for the above.
The term “christian jews and gentile” was suppose to show differences in traditions and culture. Like christian Americans and Nigerians. I could have been clearer on that point. Thanks for pointing that out.
Well I guess this forever ruins my lurker mode. :^)